Volume 235 — Mississippi Reports

<bold>1. Judgments — res judicata — general rule.</bold> Former judgment on the merits, between the same parties, in a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive and final as to any issue actually litigated and determined in the former action, however erroneous, and which issue is essential to the maintenance of a second action between them, though it be brought upon a different cause of action. <bold>2. Judgments — declaratory judgment in Federal Court</bold> <bold>establishing nonliability of insurer on contents coverage —</bold> <bold>not res judicata of insured's right to proceed in State Court</bold> <bold>to recover for loss of building.</bold> Where insurers of restaurant building and contents, after notice of loss filed suit in Federal Court for declaratory judgment to establish nonliability and court held that insurers were not<page_number>Page 61</page_number> liable under contents coverage of policies but denied all other relief and no appeal had been taken therefrom, failure of owners to file counterclaim in Federal Court did not constitute waiver of right to recover for loss of building nor was judgment therein res judicata against such right. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 13(a), 28 U.S.C.A. <bold>3. Insurance — fire policies — failure of insureds to disclose</bold> <bold>to insurer fact that beer was illegally sold on premises — not</bold> <bold>a wilful concealment of a material fact as would void</bold> <bold>policies.</bold> Failure of insured owners of restaurant to disclose to insurers arrangements whereby beer was illegally sold on premises was not a wilful concealment of a material fact and did not void fire policies. <bold>4. Insurance — fire policies — evidence — illegal sale of beer</bold> <bold>on insured's premises as not increasing fire hazard or</bold> <bold>probability of destruction of building by such illegal sale of</bold> <bold>beer.</bold> In action by insured owners of restaurant building and contents against insurers on fire policies for loss of building and contents wherein insurers alleged that owners refused to disclose arrangement whereby beer was illegally sold on premises, evidence was sufficient to sustain finding that owners had not increased hazard of fire or probability of destruction of building by illegal sale of beer or by any other means within their knowledge. Headnotes as approved by Lee, J.

<bold>1. Workmen's compensation — broad and liberal construction</bold> <bold>accorded Act — doubtful cases resolved in favor of</bold> <bold>compensation.</bold> There should be accorded to the Workmen's Compensation Act a broad and liberal construction and doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of compensation, as humane purpose of Act leaves no room for narrow or techincal construction. Sec. 6998-01, et seq., Code 1942. <bold>2. Workmen's compensation — reviewing court not authorized to</bold> <bold>reverse finding of Commission on disputed issue of fact where</bold> <bold>supported by substantial evidence.</bold> Where finding of Commission on disputed issue of fact is supported by substantial evidence, Court is not authorized to reverse Commission's order. Sec. 6998-01, et seq., Code 1942. <bold>3. Workmen's compensation — where facts not in dispute matter</bold> <bold>for decision by Court reviewing award is one of law.</bold> Where there is no dispute over facts in compensation case, matter for decision by Court reviewing award is one of law. Sec. 6998-01, et seq., Code 1942.<page_number>Page 154</page_number> <bold>4. Workmen's compensation — back injury — evidence — claimant</bold> <bold>entitled to award for temporary total disability — where no</bold> <bold>substantial dispute in proof.</bold> Where there was no substantial dispute over evidence showing that employee sustained back injury in employment, and medical proof was undisputed that he was temporarily totally disabled, he was entitled to an award for temporary total disability, notwithstanding fact that physicians had been unable to make definite diagnosis of exact nature of trouble. Sec. 6998-01, et seq., Code 1942. <bold>5. Workmen's compensation — attorneys' fees.</bold> Supreme Court allowed attorneys for claimant fee of one third of amount to be recovered in case for all services. Headnotes as approved by Hall, J.